Chris Beard Named CEO of Mozilla

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Mozilla has given acting chief executive Chris Beard the job of CEO. Beard replaced Brendan Eich after he resigned amid controversy earlier this year.

Chris first joined Mozilla in 2004, just before we shipped Firefox 1.0 – and he’s been deeply involved in every aspect of Mozilla ever since. During his many years here, he at various times has had responsibility for almost every part of the business, including product, marketing, innovation, communications, community and user engagement.
 
They must have had to scrutinize his political donations before hiring him.
 
Quick! Let's find something from his personal life that some group of people will object to!
 
Quick! Let's find something from his personal life that some group of people will object to!

He said something about how Xbox sucks and Nintendo is awesome. Now everyone hates him for having an unpopular opinion. FIRE HIM!
 
He said something about how Xbox sucks and Nintendo is awesome. Now everyone hates him for having an unpopular opinion. FIRE HIM!

I doubt you'll find anyone who has been funding political organization whose goal is to strip basic rights from Xbox players and make them second-class citizens based on the belief that a bronze-age war god called Xbox players an abomination.
 
Which one of these fuckers is going to fix the RAM leaks?
 
How long before this man is found to have kicked over an anthill, or swatted a mosquito!

Then it'll be:

6007605393_cb36f06e3c_z.jpg
 
I doubt you'll find anyone who has been funding political organization whose goal is to strip basic rights from Xbox players and make them second-class citizens based on the belief that a bronze-age war god called Xbox players an abomination.
He's wrong but today having an opinion on anything that isn't popular could get you mortally wounded. And it's become border line insane to the point where logic doesn't matter. Is gay marriage that important of an issue? Not enough to get violent over, which I've seen people do. I'm just afraid that one day the public opinion may get so out of control that anything but that opinion is brutally incorrect.

An example of this is the Zimmerman trial, which I believe the public was given incomplete info over the situation and reacted before getting all the info. A lot of that was the media feeding what made good headline news. Another good example is what happened with a woman driving a black Infiniti that struck a barrier and a Secret Service officer, by accident. They ended up shooting her dead and the incident fell on deaf ears cause the media doesn't talk about it no more. But once all the info on the situation was released, rather then accept something different happened, the people began to justify their over reactions and assumptions.

People today are scary.
 
i gota admit after that bullshit mozilla did with the last guy i've been reluctant to use firefox
 
Yeah, it'd really suck if he was the kind of guy to punish others for not sharing his opinions.

Like you and yours.

You can hate anybody you want, just like you're free to tattoo pictures on your face. Both behaviors are likely to affect people's opinions and limit your professional options.

He wasn't actually fired or forced out of the company. He resigned when his donations were discovered. Mozilla actually offered him another position.
 
I wonder if he donated money to the right groups to get his position as CEO.
 
Nope. I meant I hope he's not a bigot.
The last CEO is not the one who exerted his relationship with Mozilla to affect anyone's life because of something that has nothing to do their job that he didn't like. The irony of your parroted remark is likely over your head.
 
I doubt you'll find anyone who has been funding political organization whose goal is to strip basic rights from Xbox players and make them second-class citizens based on the belief that a bronze-age war god called Xbox players an abomination.

That's probably only because no one has started such a political organization yet.

If it were out there, I'm sure a lot of overzealous fans would join it.

Seriously, I hope not too many companies manage to create/promote religions where buying their products is an act of worship, and insisting that you shun those who buy a competitor's products.
 
Nope. I meant I hope he's not a bigot.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

By very definition the Mozilla foundation is just as bigoted as the guy they got rid of despite the fact that he never once used his position to advance his personal ideology, unlike the Mozilla foundation...
 
Holding a different political position from yours is neither hate nor bigotry, no matter how much you want to misrepresent it that way.
Are you trying to imply that if I donate to a group that supports traditional marriage over polygamy, which really has absolutely nothing to do with my job function and is a matter of my private life, that I shouldn't have my career ruined?

That's just rediculous.
 
Are you trying to imply that if I donate to a group that supports traditional marriage over polygamy...

Sorry, all I can read there is "I HATE GAYS SO MUCH SECOND CLASS CITIZENS BRING BACK THE SPANISH INQUISITION ZOMBIE HARVEY MILK 2016".
 
Holding a different political position from yours is neither hate nor bigotry, no matter how much you want to misrepresent it that way.

If we were talking about two competing evidence-based ideas, sure. We're not, we're talking about a baseless religious belief that rights should be denied to a minority group because god says so. Beyond that, he didn't merely state a position, he supported organizations whose goal was to use the law to treat gay people like second class citizens.

How exactly have I 'misrepresented' his position? The fact that lots of people are still homophobic does not make it right, the popularity or unpopularity of something is no basis for judging its truth. Calling something a 'political position' does not make it immune to criticism of is moral and rational basis.

It sounds to me like the people upset over his resignation are really more upset about the fact that homophobia is no longer socially acceptable behavior. If you're one of those people I don't really know what to tell you other than to think about how you came to that position in the first place and whether or not it's morally acceptable in light of what we know today.
 
If we were talking about two competing evidence-based ideas, sure. We're not...

We're talking about two completely subjective opinions, that's right. I'm glad you see sense, and you're not trying to claim that your subjective opinion is objective fact and that anyone who opposes you is therefore malicious, evil, or some other ridiculous fanatical notion.
 
big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

By very definition the Mozilla foundation is just as bigoted as the guy they got rid of despite the fact that he never once used his position to advance his personal ideology, unlike the Mozilla foundation...
I am happy to admit I am bigoted against bigots.
 
It's always best when someone admits they don't actually live up to their preached ideals. I wish more hypocrites were honest about that.
 
Back
Top